[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAObL_7FMX9yaGVi19pVwsU5VwHqKLLWMEB7kwDF-fatsGnHvdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:28:12 -0700
From: Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 6:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> I wanted to avoid the "another cpu made this allocation, now I have to free" crap, but I also didn't want to grab the lock if there was no work needed.
I guess you also want to avoid bouncing all these cachelines around on
boot on bit multicore machines.
I'd advocate using the bitmap approach or simplifying the existing
code. For example:
+ for (n = 0; n < ESPFIX_PUD_CLONES; n++) {
+ pud = ACCESS_ONCE(pud_p[n]);
+ if (!pud_present(pud))
+ return false;
+ }
I don't see why that needs to be a loop. How can one clone exist but
not the others?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists